SELVI AMIRTHARAJ Vs. NALINI ESTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter essentially relates to execution of a decree obtained by the contesting respondent in HRC No.10004/2020 against one Mr. Ranga @ Ranganath. The said decree was executed against the petitioner herein and thus, he was removed from the subject property disregarding his objection, though he was not a party eo nomine to the same.

(2.) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner argues that the scheme as enacted in Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 is discussed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MESSRS PARAMOUND INDUSTRIES vs. C.M.MALLIGA, ILR 1991 KAR 254, comes to the aid of his client. When contesting respondents title suit in O.S.No.7186/2018 is being tried between the parties in respect of 'B' schedule property therein, the HRC decree could not have been executed against his client inasmuch as the very same property has been comprised in the said decree. Learned Sr. Advocate complains of abuse of process of the court in hastily accomplishing the execution after obtaining the decree fraudulently within four days of filing the HRC.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents vehemently opposes the petition contending that the property comprised in HRC No.10004/2020 is different from the one in Schedule 'B' of the title suit in O.S.No.7186/2018 and therefore there cannot be obstruction by the petitioner for levying execution of the subject HRC decree. He too banks upon certain paragraphs of PARAMOUND INDUSTRIES supra.